Is refusing to pay a running back a big second contract after using a high pick on them poor asset management? The James Cook situation has Jeremy wondering why teams would use a first or second round pick on a player you'll only have for 4-5 years

I don't think it's poor asset mgmt. The Bills usually spend 3rd rd picks on backs (Motor, Moss), but liked Cook enough to use a 2nd on him. They want him on the team & want to give him a 2nd contract. Just not at 15 per

This is text book overthinking.

If you get a RB for their prime on cost control, I think that's a fine use of an asset. You are reaping the most benefit from the asset while paying the least for it. Can you get similar production from the 5th round? Maybe, some years. But you give yourself higher potential

@JeremyWGR I think you’re ignoring Cook’s role in this situation. The Bills may want him extended, but we have no idea what Cook and his agent are asking for. If it’s outrageous, which it seems like it might be, of course they shouldn’t pay him. It’s needs to be fair.

Should always draft a 1st rd rb, use him for 7 yrs. Pick up option and franchise twice then move on

It’s called cost control…🤯

4-5 years is longer than the average NFL career for running backs

Paying Cook anything over $4-5 mil./year on a 2nd contract would be a huge waste of assets (cap dollars). Doing that just to "justify" getting more out of a 2nd round pick is stupid. They got quality play, cheap, for 4 years. Move on. "High pick" doing a lot of work there.

Let James WALK!!!!

Because some are special. Cook isn’t